What the hell is zugzwang?
The dictionary definition straight from Merriam-Webster is “the necessity of moving in chess when it is to one’s disadvantage.” The term is German (of course) for “compulsion to move.” A longer definition might give away the conclusion of this article: a situation wherein one is compelled to make a move, even though a move will significantly worsen one’s position, and one would prefer not to make any move at all.
Is the relationship to conservatism becoming clearer?
Zugzwang is pronounced tsuk-tsvang, which rhymes with “Look, dong!” The latter of which is something not uncommonly heard from the mouth of gay conservative personality Milo Yiannopoulos, and the former of which is an onomatopoeic rendering of the sound of Milo Yiannopoulos and the ostensibly straight Gavin McInnes passionately locking lips to stop Islam, or something.
Yeah, watch the video. Gavin McInnes, a self-described “homophobe” and avatar of a putatively alternative political right, shouts “Fuck Islam!” before inserting his tongue into Yiannopoulos’ mouth. Mmm. Tsuk-tsvang. Tsuk-tsvang. Zugzwang, you idiot!
Conservatives are bad at chess. The Left, all liberals, socialists, communists, progressives, and radicals included, make the moves. They control the middle. They attack and take pieces with impunity. They call the shots and pick the battles. Conservatives find themselves defending yesterday’s progress against a new generation of boundary-breakers. The Left makes a move, and conservatives find themselves in zugzwang — every possible move is a losing move, a losing move for conservative values.
Do conservatives flip over the chessboard? No, they make a bad move, and keep playing. Nothing is learned. Conservative zugzwang is a special kind of zugzwang that never, ever ends.
The Milo-McInnes fiasco is just the latest in a long string of disadvantageous conservative moves that leaves the official right wing catching up to the Left. Jokes about “cuckservatives” eventually defending “the sanctity of gay marriage” have been around as long as I can remember, and it wasn’t long before they stopped being funny — sometime in mid-2015, if I remember correctly. It took less than a year from the U.S. Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling for the edgy edge of the conservative Right to reach the conclusion that homosexuals should join the right-wing coalition.
We can’t forget what gave them that bright idea: the decision of a D-voting Afghan Muslim living in Florida to shoot rifle rounds into a fleshy wall of homosexuals in a gay Orlando nightclub. He killed 49 of them before dawn, doubtlessly pleased with himself. This morbid non-sequitur of left-wing victim groups was seized upon immediately by everyone to the right of John Kasich, as if, all of a sudden, logic, reason, and an appeal to the common good would inspire anything but apoplectic rage against White Christian America in leftist bellies.
Muslims and homosexuals are both tiny minorities of the American population, about 1% and 3.8% respectively (including lesbians, trannies, and the mythical bisexuals). For comparison, Mormons make up about 2% of the U.S. population, and about 1% of the U.S. population still speaks Polish at home. There are probably more Poles than Muslims in America, but MSNBC is yet to berate me about Pierogiphobes hiding under my bed and in my closet.
So why are these miniscule minorities in the public eye so often, and why are we all forced to care about them? That’s an easy one to answer: powerful leftists, liberals, communists, progressives, socialists, and radicals in the media, academia, and the permanent bureaucracy brought them over here or booked them for New York Times features. The Orlando terrorist’s father is almost certainly a CIA asset on ice in America until he’s ready to be used in Afghanistan, and the CIA is not staffed with Trump voters. NAMBLA’s ideological descendants are feeling the Bern.
America must accept a Muslim minority brought over from abroad, and must accept that every movie and TV show has a token gay character (or protagonist). Couldn’t America have brought over, say, a South African Boer minority from abroad, and installed a token Mormon character in every movie and TV show? Yes, in a theoretical America where the Left and Right are equally good at chess. In the real America we live in, conservatives have to deal with the pieces the Left allows them. They remain in conservative zugzwang.
The Left had no dilemma when a member of holy victim group A pumped 49 members of holy victim group B with hot lead instead of the hot penis they were expecting. Victim group B was kind of implicitly white anyway, and do cis white men, even if homosexual, really deserve that much sympathy? What about disabled trans black Muslim females? Shouldn’t we be putting more effort into educating Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi about social justice and human rights?
The Left created the political lobbies and victim groups of Muslims and gays, and as soon as it became inconvenient for them, they jettisoned the gays. Conservatives rush to pick up the pieces, and in the process acquire nothing but a disadvantage. Conservative values don’t advance with the support of a discarded left-wing victim group, they recede in order to accomodate the victim group. How do the John Kasichs plan to defend traditional marriage while also acquiring the powerful gay lobby as a piece in the game against the Left? Short answer: they don’t.
The fact that the ideological Left controls all means of transferring intergenerational knowledge — and most means of communication otherwise — means that past examples of conservative zugzwang have been totally memory-holed. Quick: can you think of some other former victim groups that the official right-wingers support and defend, who in the past were entirely part of the radical Left? Blacks. Women. Jews. Immigrants. Catholics. Even Mormons used to be beyond the pale.
What victim group hasn’t the Right yet adopted after it was dropped from the Left? There are caveats and nuances to be applied to the short list above, but the trend and dynamic is clear. Once the Left discards you, the Right picks you up. The key thing to note is that the Right is not making the moves. The Right is not taking the initiative. The Right is not flipping over the chessboard, nor psyching out the opposing side with insanity and violence. The Right is simply and perpetually stuck, trapped, and oh geez oh man, there they go again.
Abandoned by the Left, conservatives should have upheld conservative values and offered homosexuals a place in the right-wing coalition as repentant sinners, who do not allow their sexual disorder to define their identity, and bear their cross like all mortal men. Instead, there was #ShootBack. Feminists of yesterday — those who weren’t sold on Kill All Men and subsequently abandoned by the Left — should have been offered a place in the conservative coalition as faithful wives and mothers. “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” 1 Timothy 2:12. Instead, the New Conservative Woman roars. Examples like these abound.
Why was and is the Right compelled to sell out instead of uphold conservative values? The conservative coalition used to consist of supporting one person — the King — and he was sold out centuries ago. Since then the number of groups to support has multiplied in the Left’s wake. The adoptions, even just nominal, of democracy and egalitarianism, sold out the truth about the universe and human nature and everything else along with it. With the denial of a King went the denial of hierarchy. It just took a while to get rid of the exceptions, as Jim is fond of saying.
There are also plenty of other ideas and concepts that the Left jettisoned that conservatives picked up without a second thought. Democracy, secularism, free markets, one-mouth-one-vote, equality, human rights, blah blah blah. How many ordinary conservatives would oppose democracy, secularism, equality, or human rights? Most of them invoke the very same concepts in a vain struggle against left-wing dominance, often without understanding of the nature of the concept they are invoking, and sometimes even without sincere belief. In the 19th century, a time to which most political parties in the West can still trace their roots, one-man-one-vote was a radical concept, and having a parliament was under debate.
Whether democracy, parliaments, or gay marriage were ever good ideas was never settled by a free and open exchange of ideas, it was settled by force — employed joyfully and indiscriminately by coalitions of left-wing elites with something to gain and left-wing crazies with nothing to lose, against hapless conservatives stuck in the middle. The lost ground, from 1776 to 2016, was never won back, and conservatives kept forgetting how much they had lost to begin with.
Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson won Brexit for Britain, then immediately dropped their political ambitions, and before I knew it, there was a gay man and a few women competing for the position that should have been filled by Our Nige, straight as a fag.
If I remember correctly, the Dangerous Faggot himself has commented on how silly it is that gay men like himself and Jack Donovan are the ones standing up for Western masculinity. Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands was a pioneering gay anti-Islam campaigner. France’s Front National is notable for its appeal to Jews and homosexuals. Forget fetuses’ rights to life, the future of conservative Western parties is shaping up to be a dignified loss to a Communist-Islamist alliance on the issues of white, Christian, Jewish, and gay rights to life. Tsuk-tsvang. Tsuk-tsvang.
One might call that the ultimate checkmate to years and years of conservative zugzwang, but the Right lost its King a long, long time ago. It was already over then. It’s time to flip over the chessboard or leave the table and find a new set of pieces to play with. Most importantly, a new King. Just like in chess, without one you’ve already lost.
Conservatives won’t stop being in zugzwang until they quit the rigged game of egalitarian democracy.